August 18, 2008

Did McCain Violate the "Cone of Silence"? Most Americans Don't Care -- and Neither Should our Media (Correction)

by Deb Cupples| You know it's silly season when a satirical concept (actually a gag) from the 1970s TV show Get Smart makes it into heated discussions about our nation's presidential race.

Apparently, Pastor Rick Warren held a Q&A (the "Saddleback forum") over the weekend, during which he separately asked Barack Obama and John McCain the same questions. So as not to disadvantage either candidate, Mr. Warren reportedly withheld all but two questions from both candidates. While the first candidate (Obama) answered the questions, McCain was relegated to a room with no TV -- which someone dubbed the "Cone of Silence."

I hope it wasn't the forum's planners who chose that name, because doing so would be a blatant tempting of fate, God, or the Gods to intervene in counter-productive ways. In the Get Smart series,
when Max and The Chief were inside the transparent "Cone of Silence," they couldn't
hear each other without shouting, but anyone outside the cone could
hear themjust fine.

I didn't watch the forum. Instead, I read The Hill's article about it, which blandly indicated where Obama and McCain had given different answers and where they'd given similar answers. I also read CNN's coverage, which took a different tone and focused on different aspects.

For me, that was more than enough mixing of religion and politics for one night -- given my agreement with Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine about the importance of keeping an indestructible firewall between church and state.

After "Saddleback," some people apparently mis-perceived the forum as an actual debate and proclaimed John McCain the winner. People not so fond of Sen. McCain reportedly (albeit "privately," according to media personality Andrea Mitchell) accused McCain of cheating -- i.e., getting a hold of the questions in advance, because he arrived at the "Cone of Silence" a tad tardily.

First, how private could the accusations have been if Ms. Mitchell (again, a media personality) had heard them and was free to broadcast them on a Sunday political talk show?

Second, aren't there more important issues for our national press to focus on?

Third, don't the media powers-that-be grasp that most Americans don't give a damn what any religious leader says about politics? Seriously.

I can't help wondering why heads of religious
organizations that enjoy tax-exempt status in our nation are so hell-bent
on publicly involving themselves in national politics.

Doesn't such involvement threaten their tax-exempt status? If not, then any Joe or Jane off the street could start an organization, collect money from well-meaning people, call it "church," but actually use it as a political outfit.

Correction: The New York Times' Ms. Katharine Q. Seelye (the same reporter who either selectively omitted fact or was ignorant of crucial details about Florida Democrats' skirmish with the DNC during this year's primaries) reported that McCain's staff said that he was in his motorcade when the world thought he was the "Cone of Silence."

Ms. Seelye has not demonstrated a commitment to due diligence in the research department, she has demonstrated a stellar ability to simply repeat what other people say.

Thus, she may, in fact, have stumbled upon accurate facts regarding McCain and his absence from the "Cone of Silence." Lacking the time to do a "fact check," I cannot comment either way.

I will say that it is an abominable shame that the credibility of any journalist working for one of our nation's most respected newspapers is so questionable.

Comments

Third, don't the media powers-that-be grasp that most Americans don't give a damn what any religious leader says about politics? Seriously.

That statement is clearly not true. Millions of Americans care about what their religious leaders say about politics. Evangelical Christians have been a major force in American politics for decades now. Some religious institutions, such as Focus on the Family, have become thinly veiled political operations.

It was actually a pretty good forum. Warren asked plenty of good questions. Clearly he was coming from a religious angle, but they talked about plenty of real and meaningful issues. And the answers provided some clear and stark contrasts. From the "give me a number - what constitutes rich" question, to the frank discussion of abortion policy and supreme court justices, you saw some fairly clear and distinct answers on issues a lot of people care about.

Bottom line - it would be a very good thing if people made their choice about the president based on events like that one. You need a few more to cover more issues, but Saturday night was a good night for the mainstream media.

"Cone of silence" was actually a line from Warren himself. It was just meant as a humorous way to describe the sequestrization. I don't think he anticipated cone-gate and the continuous repeating of the term.

How can you say with such confidence that people don't care about the "cone of silence" issue? You're slipping into Cokie Roberts territory, where you assume to speak for the American people without any actual backing for it. If Obama was speaking off the cuff, while McCain was giving prepped answers from his staff, that's absolutely a meaningful thing for voters to consider when they weigh the sincerity or thoughtfulness of the candidates.

The evidence that McCain knew at least some of the early questions in advance is pretty compelling. The most obvious one was when he interrupted Warren and answered his three part question with three rapid-fire responses. The only problem - Warren hadn't even asked the FIRST part yet; all he had done was set up the question. His answer only makes sense in the context of the questions that HADN'T BEEN ASKED YET.

I believe the "Cone of Silence" lie perpetuated by Pastor Warren was not the Pastor's fault. It is my opinion that someone forced his hand. That is just my opinion though.
The other possibility is that he meant to say, "Mr. McCain is currently taking a little nap in the Cone of Ignorance, and someone will wake him shortly so he can start spinning his Web of Lies.”

These false accusations of cheating by the Obama camp just shows what a lack of character these sore losers have. Obama has been getting a free pass from the beginning of the primaries. Obama looked like the rank inexperienced amateur that he is in the Saddleback debate ... while McCain looked decisive and competent. The election is only about 70 days from now, and if Obama hasn't already come up with positions on these crucial questions by now, he is certainly not qualified to be President of the United States. Crying and accusations of cheating because Obama lost the debate, only makes Obama look smaller and less deserving of the office.

I don't know what percentage takes such forums seriously (given that both candidates likely anticipated some of the bigger questions and prepared for them -- kinda like preparing for trial).

And I don't know what percentage of Americans are so into their religion and emotional issues like abortion that they would consistently vote for politicians who tend to have a deleterious effect on their pocketbooks.

I was exaggerating to make a point.

I look around and see issues like these:

- a severely threatened national economy,

-an internationally significant conflict in Russia/Georgia,

-numerous private contractors making our govt's business cost way more than it needs to,

- a health care crisis (to which contractors contribute), and

- a piss-poor education system that perpetuates the cycle of poverty (thus, it perpetuates crime and ends up costing us taxpayers more in the long run).

In light of issues like that, I can't help thinking that whether a politician cheated at a forum -- or even whether the forum happened at all -- is simply not important in the grand scheme and does not deserve much media attention.

The forum touched on more than one of the issues you bring up there. Like I said, it was a good day for the MSM. Warren spent more time on moral issues than I care for, but the bottom line is that viewers got fairly straightforward answers from the candidates on a wide range of issues, and there was a clear contrast in positions. It was the sort of thing that voters should get more of, not less of.

I agree that the "cone of silence" issue is not earth-shattering, but it's certainly fair game to mention it, particularly with the McCain campaign backing away from any clear denials. It's pretty clear that McCain had at least a handful of rehearsed answers to Warren's questions. How meaningful a piece of information that is is up to each voter to decide.

Yes, it is fair to bring up if McCain cheated. That's not really my point.

I agree with Damozel: religious groups have been playing too much of a role in our national politics (and govt) over the last 8 years -- and the media's making a big deal out of their forums only adds to the perception of legitimacy.

As someone who agrees wholeheartedly with Jefferson and Paine, I don't like it.

And look at what the Catholic League is trying to do now re the convention. Slippery slope.

(I was raised Catholic, btw).

I think religion is religion and needs to be relegated to its own realm. Similarly, I think govt is govt, and should NOT interfere with religion.

Fair enough. Personally, I was fine with this event because Warren was a fair host and covered a lot of ground. At the same time, I agree that it says something about our society if this guy had the juice to put together an event like this, while environmental or civil liberty or healthcare advocacy groups are on the sideline. Of course, many more groups had their say in the early goings of the Democratic primaries, but that's not the same.